( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 115 of the CPC. to revise the order passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1968 permitting respondent No. 1 to sue in forma pauperis. 'the order is challenged by the petitioner before this Court He contends that the petitioner in the lower court has a share in the joint family property which is worth Rs. 15,000 or more and that the trial Court had erred in overlooking that aspect of the case. It appears that the present petitioner filed Ext. D-1 ia which some person bequeathed certain property in favour of the elder brother of the petitioner and some others. ( 2 ) IN my opinion, it is unnecessary to consider that question in the present case. The suit is essentiallv in respect of the trust property. It has been expressly stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint petition that the claim relates to a trust and the trust properties and rendition of accounts by the trustee. It has been set out in the plaint petition that one Krishna kainath had created a trust for the due performance of the pooja of the family deity Sri Lakshminarayanadevaru and that he had bequeathed moveable and immoveable properties to the deity and that defendant No. 1 was a usurper. ( 3 ) MR. U. L. NARAYANA Rao appearing for the petitioner, contended that the word 'person' used in rule 1 of Order XXXIII refers to the person suing in his personal capacity and has no reference to other capacities. The word 'person' is a well defined term in law and includes a company, trustee, shebait etc. It has been laid down in Mabia v. Sheik Satkari, 45 Cal. L. J. 68, that if plaintiff sues in a representative capacity as trustee or shebait and has not in his possession sufficient property of the trust, he may be allowed to sue as a pauper although, he has sufficient personal property of his own. This decision is conclusive of the matter. ( 4 ) MR. ABDUL Rahman appearing for the Respondent submitted with reference to the decision, of the Madras High Court in Kalimuthu Servai v. Govindaswami Servsai, (1960) 2 Mad. L. J. 313 that no revision is competent. This decision is conclusive of the matter. ( 4 ) MR. ABDUL Rahman appearing for the Respondent submitted with reference to the decision, of the Madras High Court in Kalimuthu Servai v. Govindaswami Servsai, (1960) 2 Mad. L. J. 313 that no revision is competent. This, decision does not lay down that a revision is not competent; what it lays down is that in all cases of granting leave to sue in forma pauperis it is primarily the State that is interested in challenging the correctness of such orders as it is the State which is mainly interested in the recovery of the Court fee, and that therefore the High Court would not normally interfere in revision against such an order at the instance of the parties to the dispute. In my opinion if an order is passed under Order XXXIII and if it squarely comes within the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC. , there is nothing in law which prevents a High Court from interfering with such an order. ( 5 ) IN the result, the application fails and is dismissed; parties to bear their costs. --- *** --- .